Jump to content


Registered User

Posts by Secondhandlion

  1. Well, I'd like to read the offending paragraph, but in general I have no problem with keeping intelligent design out of science curricula.

    Let me try to explain why without deifying either science or any other field of thought.

    Science is both a specific body of knowledge and the method used to arrive at that body of knowledge. As I understand the process, it starts with observing events, formulating a theory that attempts to explain those events then designing experiments to confirm or deny the theory. If the evidence does not support the theory, then the theory is discarded and everyone tries again.

    Intelligent design shouldn't be part of science curricula because the theory isn't science in any sense of the term.

    There's no way to confirm or disprove the existence of the designer. How would you word the hypothesis in the first place and what experiment would you do to test it?

    In short, intelligent design may well be true, but there's no way to prove or disprove it using the scientific method. If it can't be tested, it isn't science.

    The scientific method is, indeed, only one way of "knowing" ... there are other ways of knowing, ie intuitive, but if you stop at the "intuitive hit" without being able to test it, then it ain't science and has no place in a science textbook.

    Sociology, philosophy, comparative religions ... now there's a different story. As you've stated the issue, the problem wasn't with children being told about intelligent design ... it was with intelligent design being included in a science text when the theory is untestable and therefore not science.

    ETA: and I happen to agree with Elvish, the two are not mutually exclusive.

    It wasn't about teaching ID.

    It was about informing the students that some people believed differently.

    But you have convieniently given a good argument for removal of many of the tenets of evolution from science curriculum.

    The judge's comments about intelligent design were spot on accurate, but they didn't apply to the case he ruled on. The people weren't trying to teach intelligent design, or promote religion. Right ruling, wrong case.

    The people who filed a complaint about their children being informed that some people (of no particular persuasion, religious or otherwise), were not a bunch of conservatives.

  2. He is biracial (black and white). In addition, it is clear that he very much loved his mother and grandparents, who all happen to be white.

    You don't get to classify the president.

    He personally claims he is African American.

    And his paternal grandparents were not white.

    Didn't he love them, too?


This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.